You are really clueless if you don't think that saying: "Shame on Jefferson Davis and the rest of the southern traitors ! " is an inflammatory comment. It implies that all who served the CSA, military and civilian, and supported its existence, were: "Traitors." I think rather that your continual and purposeful usage of terms like: "Traitors" and: "Treason" signals your intent to be inflammatory.

Just because many northerners of that day equated secession with treason did not make it so. Treason can only be committed against one's own country, and those who formed the CSA considered that they had established their own separate country. They did not seek to destroy the U.S. Government, only to leave it.

You can cling to the 1869 USSC decision from a Court loaded with Lincoln appointees if you wish to. But it had no bearing on the reality that existed in 1861, when it can't be shown that secession broke any existing laws. Other countries that might have recognized the CSA were threatened with war by the Lincoln Adminstration if they did so. While they abstained from that, several granted: "Belligerent" status to the CSA. That traditionally refers to a warring state. Being recognized as a : "Belligerent power" gave the CSA a degree of equality in how it was regarded by foreign states. For example, CSA warships were treated the same as those of the USA when entering foreign ports. In addition, Mr. Lincoln himself gave de facto recognition to the CSA by declaring a naval blockade of its ports, something traditionally done only to an enemy country engaged in a war.

As for: "Hotheads," there were plenty in the north as well as the south, and some were real headaches for Mr. Lincoln. As for: "Code Duello," you have obviously bought into the nonsense posted in this forum by Mr. D. Laurence Rogers. In reality, the CSA wasn't challenging the U.S. Government to some kind of duel. The Confederates would have been more than happy to be left alone, as Jefferson Davis put it in 1861. The Confederates did, however, signal an intention to defend themselves if attacked. But there was never any intention to attack those states that wished to continue to be part of the USA.

Speaking of the USA, I would add that based on your previous posting you don't consider our Founding Fathers to have been: "Wise men," since they took on the greatest military power in the world in their day, Great Britain. It seems that the desire for independence can cause men to be imprudent. In the end, the Confederates did not have the good fortune that the earlier: "Secessionists" enjoyed, as the outcomes were different. But such are the fortunes of war.

As usual, you make false assumptions about my postings. There is nothing in any of my postings on this forum that defends the institution of slavery. I have only said that it was the law of the land, like it or not. I would blame some laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act for strengthening the hand of the abolitionists in the north, and hastening the conflict.

As for secession, I never assigned subjective terms to it as you continually do. I simply said that it was the right of states that voluntarily entered the Union to voluntarily leave it. This position is supported by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, one of the original Bill of Rights without which the Constitution would not have been ratified. Whatever or whoever that brought about secession had no bearing on its legality.

We continue to disagree regarding your contention that the southerners could have : "Worn out" northern opposition to secession by resorting to legal action. You talk about: "Clinging to myths." Well, that is certainly one. Mr. Lincoln said that he would not accept secession in any form, and he wasn't going to change his mind. Peaceful departure by the southerners wasn't ever going to happen.

We agree that general hostilities could have been delayed if Major Anderson had been allowed to abandon Ft. Sumter when his supplies would have run out on 15 April 1861. But that would only have delayed the inevitable until some other spark ignited the situation. I would say that the die was cast before then.

War could have been avoided by either side. The states that had seceded could of course have avoided war if they had agreed to abandon their quest for independence. Of course, it can also be said that war could have been avoided if those in the north had been willing to let the southerners leave peacefully.

Neither of these possibilities was feasible because neither side would back down from its position. War can only take place if both sides are willing to fight. By 1861, enmity built up over many decades had produced just such a situation.

Your blind hatred of the southern culture of that day and all things CSA has resulted in you assigning all of the blame for the war to the southern side. So you continue to spew out bilious comments attacking those that you regard as being the villains of that catastrophic event.